Mumbai Court January 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Poona Chitrashala Steam Press Vs. Gajanan Industrial and Trading Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom29; (1922)24BOMLR355; 67Ind.Cas.941
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 2575-1-0 the balance still due on a promissory note passed by the defendant Company. Both the lower Courts have rejected the claim on the ground that the promissory note signed by T.N. Joshi for Joshi, Patwardhan and Company, Secretaries, Treasurers and Agents, does not come within the provisions of Section 72 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882, which was the Act prevailing when the note was passed. The appellate Court has found that T.N. Joshi had implied authority to sign the promissory note on behalf of the Company as against third parties, and there can be no doubt on the evidence that the Secretaries, Treasurers and Agents, would be the persons to sign documents of this character in accordance with the Articles of Association, and the terms of their employment; and whatever private arrangement there may have been between Joshi and the Company with regard to the machinery in respect of which this promissory note was passed, t...
Devu Jetiram Gujar Vs. Revappa Satappa Shintre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR370; 67Ind.Cas.840
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs applied for execution of thier decree in Suit No. 240 of 1909 by sale of part of the mortgaged property. It was admitted that the defendant at the time the decree was passed was not an agriculturist, but on the allegation that he had since become an agriculturist, he claimed to be entitled to the benefit of Section 15B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. Both the lower Courts have held that assuming that the defendant had become an agriculturist since the decree was passed, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 15B.2. In Balchand Chaturchand v. Chunilal Jagjivandas I.L.R. (1913) 37 Bom. 486; 15 Bom. L.R. 387 the question arose whether a defendant who was not an agriculturist at the time when a money decree was passed against him, but who had become one later, could at the time of execution ask the Court under Section 20 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act to grant instalments. Mr. Justice Heaton said:-In this case the First Cla...
Chunilal Devaji Vs. Karamchand Shrichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR364
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The facts of this suit are somewhat complicated, and have been rendered more complicated by the fact that in the course of the proceedings an order was passed allowing the plaintiffs to amend their plaint. But in this second appeal the only respondent is the 1st defendant, and we are not concerned with any order passed by the lower appellate Court against the remaining defendants. The lower appellate Court dismissed the suit as against the first defendant, reversing the decree of the trial Court, which directed that the plaintiff's should recover from the 1st defendant Rs. 1,074-3-7 with interest. It is against the order of the lower appellate Court dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant that the plaintiffs appeal, and for the purposes of the appeal it will only be necessary to refer to certain main facts.2. In 1904 one Amarchand Keshavji filed a suit against certain persons, who are represented now in this suit by defendants 2 to 10. He attached certai...
Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Bapuji Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom22; (1922)24BOMLR382; 66Ind.Cas.997
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced by the Magistrate to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a time of Rs. 100. The accused had dishonestly induced the complainant to part with her ornaments, and these were pledged with a person called Dalichand. The Magistrate directed that out of the fine, if recovered, Rs. 35 should be paid as compensation to Dalichand under Section 545, Criminal Procedure Code. But that section only enables the Magistrate to direct that the whole or any part of the fine, if recovered, should be applied in compensation for the injury caused by the offence committed. The offence committed was cheating, and no injury was caused to Dalichand by the cheating. We think, therefore, that the District Magistrate was right in asking this Court to revise the order passed by the trying Magistrate under Section 545, Criminal Procedure Code, and the order must be set aside, and if any Co...
Egala Pedda Papa Naidu and anr. Vs. P. Munisamy Aiyar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom30
1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for the specific performance of a contract, for the sale of the suit and, executed by the second defendant on 10th October 1913 in favour of plaintiffs. The first defendant, to whom the land was sold by the second defendant, on 14th March 1916, is the contesting defendant. The District Munsif decreed the suit; but on Appeal by the first defendant, the Subordinate Judge held that there was no contract and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.2. The alleged contract is evidenced by Exhibit A, the material portion of which, runs as follows.In respect of the lands which you and others had sold to my mother Ammayammal on the 2nd October 1902, yon executed a cultivation muchilika to me on the 10th October 1913 specifying the lands with particulars of numbers. The amount mentioned in the said sale-deed is Rs. 600. And the amount of small loans taken from time to time is Rs. 200. On payment being made of the total amount of Rs. 800 (eight hundred...
Khimchand Narotamdas Bhavsar Vs. Bhogilal Hirachand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR361; 67Ind.Cas.913
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for dissolution of partnership. The suit was filed on the 8th February 1918. On the 13th February 1918, an order was passed under the 3rd clause of the Second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code referring the matters in dispute to two arbitrators Mr. Thakordas and Mr. Trikarulal. Later on the parties informed the Court that they had cancelled the reference to these gentlemen, and had privately appointed Mr. Trikamlal alone as the sole arbitrator. That was consequently an arbitration without the intervention of the Court. Mr. Trikamlal delivered his award on the 18th of April 1919. On the 15th August 1919, the plaintiff presented an application to file the award as an adjustment under Order XXIII, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code. But previous to that, on the 25th June 1919, he had filed a suit on the award, Suit No. 572 of 1919.2. Then on the 18th March 1920, the parties made an application to the Court that as certain contentions had been ...
Hanmant Timaji Desai Vs. Raghavendrarao Gururao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR410; 67Ind.Cas.847
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff obtained a decree on an award on the 8th October 1915, whereby it was directed that the defendants should pay to the plaintiff Rs. 14,000 by eleven instalments; that the first ten instalments were to be paid by annual instalments of Rs. 1,300 each, and the last instalment was to be one of Rs. 1,000; that the defendants should pay the instalment every year on 1st August to the plaintiff; that the first instalment was to be paid on 1st August 1916; that if the defendants failed to pay any two instalments out of the said instalments, the said two instalments should be paid within six months from the date of default to pay the second instalment; and that in case of failure to pay the said two instalments within six months accordingly, the plaintiff should recover the whole amount of the said two instalments and the future instalments that remained unpaid on that day, and costs, by sale of the property mentioned in the deed of mortgage without possession...
Sanyasi Charan Mandal Vs. Krishnadhan Banerji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR700
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, passed in separate suits on the 31st January, 1919, reversing two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of the 24 Pargauahs, dated the 28th February, 1916.2. In each suit a money decree was sought against the present appellant, who was a minor at its institution. One suit was brought on a hand-note signed by the minor's three adult brothers; the other on a hath-chitta, signed by his four adult brothers, the youngest of them having then attained majority.3. The ground of liability stated in the plaint is that the defendant and his brothers are owners and partners in ancestral businesses, and the money claimed was borrowed by the brothers for the purposes of the businesses.4. The minor defended in each case by his guardian for the suit.5. The defendant and his brothers were the five sons of Bhuban Mohan Mandal, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of law. He di...
Mahomed Ibrahim Rowther Vs. Shaikh Ibrahim Rowther
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR944
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated August 12, 1915, of the High Court at Madras reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, dated January 7, 1914.2. The litigants are Lubbai Mahomedans of the Sunni sect, and the contest is as to the devolution of the estate of Mahomed Hussain Rowther. He died in 1904 leaving a widow and three sons and also two daughters named Ponnuthayee and Sulaiha Bi.3. Ponnuthayee died in September, 1905, leaving a husband and a daughter. They are the plaintiffs in this suit. The defendants are the three sons of Mahomed Hussain Rowther, his widow and the two children of Sulaiha Bi who was dead at the institution of this suit.4. The plaintiffs claim shares in Mahomed Hussain's estate as heirs of Ponnuthayee, and they are supported by the children of Sulaiha Bi, who make a similar claim as heirs of their mother. The contesting defendants are the three sons and their mother.5. The decision of the rival claims depends upon whethe...
Hallappa Kallappa Vs. Irappa Girimallappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR406; 67Ind.Cas.844
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit for partition of certain lands and houses and moveables at Shirhatti in Athni Taluka. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were his bhaubands. The other defendants were alleged to be alienees of some of the lands. Defendant No. 4 did not appear at the trial. The suit was decreed. Thereafter defendant No. 4 got the decree set aside to the extent of the land Survey Number 156, which is said to have been transferred to him by the sale-deed Exhibit 115 in 1913. The plaintiff alleged that the transfer was really a mortgage, and that therefore, the land was still owned by his family and was partible.2. In the trial Court the issue was whether the sale relied on by the defendant No. 4 was really a mortgage. It does not seem to have been suggested there that that issue could not be tried, or that Section 10 A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act was not applicable to the case. But in first appeal that point was taken. The learned Judge said:The only ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »